Priesthood for women

[_subgenius]

What do you mean by "earned"? Are you suggesting men have "earned" their leadership and women haven't? Clarification, please.

"Earned" is a rather simple concept, not sure how i can explain it simpler than it already has been.
I was not "suggesting" anything, i thought i was flat out stating it...at least by the facts in evidence.
Women have obviously "earned" the leadership roles that they occupy.

The counter argument would be that any of these leadership roles were, or are, somehow able to be "taken", by which case one could argue that a woman simply has been unable to "take" one.

you choose

[_subgenius]

... the LDS church having females in leadership roles and able to participate in ordinances ...

[#img] http://wumocomicstrip.com/img/strip/-WM ... 120725.jpg[/img]

"Women would rule the world - if only they`d stop b**chin` about each other." - Chris Rock

[_subgenius]

If the LDS church claims that they are the successor organization of the early Church; she then also must have the priesthood of the early Church. And to be more precise what it in the early Church was like so. This means:

No aaronic priesthood for minors

Priesthood for women

Equal rights of both gender.

Because in the 1st century there was an equality of the sexes in the early Church. This changed only as of about 250 AD,

Either whole or not at all!

1. Your obscure and arguable reference about Junia does not justify the "she then also must have" conclusion above. Do you have any other evidence/argument?
2. You discount the relevance and importance of revelation as it is used in the church.
3. Equal rights for both genders is not scriptural. Equal rights is a temporal and political concept...ergo render unto Caeser....
4. Equality of sexes in early church of 1st century?....CFR, please. Mary Magdalene's discipleship is surely contrasted by the 1st book of Timothy, wherein women are instructed to be "silent in all the churches"....or even how Tertullian called her a "viper" for her actions.

That being said, I do not mean to diminish the importance of women in this world or in their role within the church. To assume that the genders should be homogenized is antithetical to the teachings of God and the scriptures themselves. To try an blur the ine between that which is spiritual and that which is temporal is without cause. To assume that gender equality must equate to spiritual sameness is hypocritical...women have several experiences that are beyond men and vice versa...this is by no means a measure of worthiness in the eyes of God but rather appropriateness. When building a house one uses both a hammer and a saw with little regard for one as being "equal" to the other but rather as one being for this and one for that. Just because the saw is jealous of the hammer does not merit using it to bang nails.

[_Jutta]

@Subgenius,

E.g. there is to say much to Junia that the following said about Junia to the Church Father's and teachers' John Crysostomus who lived and taught in the 4th century:

"It is something great but excellently under the apostles to be an apostle - consider which wonderful hymn of praise this is. They were excellent due to their work and their right creating deeds.
How big the wisdom really must have been for this woman that was she found worthy for the title apostle". (Quote translated from German into English.)

In many newer English Bible translations Junia is by the way identified as a woman (e.g. in the NET)
The title "apostle" was NOT by the way Aapriesthood in the early Church. It described all that one first, which had known or seen Christ (after the resurrection). A priesthood made the Roman Catholic church first in the third century from this.
You have mentioned modern revelations. Well, the first church leaders of the RCC believed to it, too. Their decisions pointed and, as in the case of the LDS; that well rather political calculation as a God determined the actions.
I only remind of the following facts at the LDS:

There should be the polygamy eternally. Fact is, that it was ended on pressure of the American government in truth. The "revelation" was only for members to keep the face.

The priesthood for colored persons. The priesthood, church leader passed away according to the statements should colored men (under this McConkie and Peterson), got only then; if all other tribes have received the Gospel. Fact is that colored persons could receive the priesthood, due to the pressure of the civil rights movement and internal problems after the construction of the temple in Brazil (as e.g. the statement of Legrand Richards told us). Kimball's "revelation" was a solution for the dilemma again.

Two cases which point are intending the not revelation but political calculation for church decisions.

[_subgenius]

@Subgenius,

E.g. there is to say much to Junia that the following said about Junia to the Church Father's and teachers' John Crysostomus who lived and taught in the 4th century:

"It is something great but excellently under the apostles to be an apostle - consider which wonderful hymn of praise this is. They were excellent due to their work and their right creating deeds.
How big the wisdom really must have been for this woman that was she found worthy for the title apostle". (Quote translated from German into English.)

In many newer English Bible translations Junia is by the way identified as a woman (e.g. in the NET)
The title "apostle" was NOT by the way Aapriesthood in the early Church. It described all that one first, which had known or seen Christ (after the resurrection). A priesthood made the Roman Catholic church first in the third century from this.
You have mentioned modern revelations. Well, the first church leaders of the RCC believed to it, too. Their decisions pointed and, as in the case of the LDS; that well rather political calculation as a God determined the actions.
I only remind of the following facts at the LDS:

There should be the polygamy eternally. Fact is, that it was ended on pressure of the American government in truth. The "revelation" was only for members to keep the face.

The priesthood for colored persons. The priesthood, church leader passed away according to the statements should colored men (under this McConkie and Peterson), got only then; if all other tribes have received the Gospel. Fact is that colored persons could receive the priesthood, due to the pressure of the civil rights movement and internal problems after the construction of the temple in Brazil (as e.g. the statement of Legrand Richards told us). Kimball's "revelation" was a solution for the dilemma again.

Two cases which point are intending the not revelation but political calculation for church decisions.

[_Jutta]

@Subgenius,

E.g. there is to say much to Junia that the following said about Junia to the Church Father's and teachers' John Crysostomus who lived and taught in the 4th century:

"It is something great but excellently under the apostles to be an apostle - consider which wonderful hymn of praise this is. They were excellent due to their work and their right creating deeds.
How big the wisdom really must have been for this woman that was she found worthy for the title apostle". (Quote translated from German into English.)

In many newer English Bible translations Junia is by the way identified as a woman (e.g. in the NET)
The title "apostle" was NOT by the way Aapriesthood in the early Church. It described all that one first, which had known or seen Christ (after the resurrection). A priesthood made the Roman Catholic church first in the third century from this.
You have mentioned modern revelations. Well, the first church leaders of the RCC believed to it, too. Their decisions pointed and, as in the case of the LDS; that well rather political calculation as a God determined the actions.
I only remind of the following facts at the LDS:

There should be the polygamy eternally. Fact is, that it was ended on pressure of the American government in truth. The "revelation" was only for members to keep the face.

The priesthood for colored persons. The priesthood, church leader passed away according to the statements should colored men (under this McConkie and Peterson), got only then; if all other tribes have received the Gospel. Fact is that colored persons could receive the priesthood, due to the pressure of the civil rights movement and internal problems after the construction of the temple in Brazil (as e.g. the statement of Legrand Richards told us). Kimball's "revelation" was a solution for the dilemma again.

Two cases which point are intending the not revelation but political calculation for church decisions.

Can't find your reply

[_bcspace]

If she is a female, and the grammar is all male, the question remains is she one of the Twelve and had the priesthood conferred upon her or perhaps is she an apostle in the sense of having seen Christ perhaps on the day of his ascension or after his resurrection when he showed himself unto many? The later sense is far more likely.

There really is no indication in the New Testament that women had the priesthood conferred upon them. What about the prophetess you say? Prophecy is one of the gifts of the Spirit. To do it officially for the whole Church/world seems to require a calling that has only been given to males.

[_Yoda]

If she is a female, and the grammar is all male, the question remains is she one of the Twelve and had the priesthood conferred upon her or perhaps is she an apostle in the sense of having seen Christ perhaps on the day of his ascension or after his resurrection when he showed himself unto many? The later sense is far more likely.

There really is no indication in the New Testament that women had the priesthood conferred upon them. What about the prophetess you say? Prophecy is one of the gifts of the Spirit. To do it officially for the whole Church/world seems to require a calling that has only been given to males.

In the Gnostic version of the Bible, Mary Magdeline is clearly an apostle much to Peter's disgust. Peter and the other apostles later humble themselves and listen to Mary as she instructs them on Church organization and different gospel questions after the Savior's resurrection. It is a fascinating read.

[_Franktalk]

I think that the scriptures (that have been sorted by men) are a stumbling block. I see no reason one soul or another should have limits on spirituality.

Lord knows that the guys have screwed things up. At least we could share the blame.

[_subgenius]

I think that the scriptures (that have been sorted by men) are a stumbling block. I see no reason one soul or another should have limits on spirituality.

Lord knows that the guys have screwed things up. At least we could share the blame.

i suppose there are two ways to consider some things in this life.
doing something is justified by:
1. seeing no reason against it
2. seeing a reason for it
the value of either of these options is worthy of discussion, but perhaps not here...not now.

that being said...there are plenty of reasons to consider men and women distinct and different, both physically and spiritually. This is not a value judgment, this is not a measure of one sex being "better" than the other, this not a means to deny one gender the benefits and burdens of another....this is merely a truth...a plain and simple fact.
To assume that the talents, faculties, and motivations of a man and a woman are identical is simply defiant of common sense and good science. The physical manifestations of each gender are distinct to their circumstance...adaptable but unchangeable.
The full potential of each gender is unattainable in isolation, it is only as they compliment and supplement each other that this power is achieved.
The priesthood would not be fully realized without the compliment of woman...just as a sword is impotent without a handle.